For those of you who think you dont pay enough in taxes....

[fskimospy]

Fuck off troll. How about contributing? What do you think about the fact the GOP here in AZ is calling the Dems bluff, and the fact the Dems are now balking?

Two things: First saying that the GOP balanced the federal budget in the 1990's is revisionist history. Partisan gridlock combined with a broad based economic expansion lasting a decade is what balanced the budget. If you want to say that the branches of government balanced the budget then you've got to credit the Democrats too, because there's no way the GOP could pass much without the White House's nod. (hence, the gridlock).

Secondly, you still have not addressed the substantive criticism of the GOP's move here. They have called no-one's bluff, they are pulling a stupid political stunt. Since taxation is a collective action issue and the GOP's bill specifically ignores one of the fundamental premises upon which all taxation is based to try and score some childish points, please explain to us how you think this is 'calling someone's bluff'? This crap wouldn't fly in 6th grade, and you seem to have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

This is the political equivalent of responding to someone saying 'I love chocolate cake' with 'If you love it so much why don't you marry it!?!' and then saying "GOTCHA!" when they don't.

 

[blackangst1]

First, if you wipe the spit off you monitor you might be able to read the words there. Second, I absolutely blame the Dems in Washington for: 1) failing to pass appropriations in a timely manner; 2) failing to pass a reasonable health care reform bill (the current one is a total sellout to the private insurance industry); 3) failing to cut funding for Bush's wars and thereby ending the wars.

Good. ou are the exception on this board then. I was just confirming.

The blueprint to an almost balanced federal budget was laid out in 1994 by Clinton and the Dem Congress, before the Reps controlled anything. All the Reps did was bitch and then try to take credit when it worked.

Eh, not quite. Nice revisionist history though. Unless you are suggesting the GOP somehow stole the idea of a balanced budget from the Dems (lol). Did Clinton suggest balancing the budget? Yah. In his campaign he said he would like to see the budget balanced in five years. Then in 1995 he repeated it, but said 10 years. In 1997, he had no choice but to work with the GOP to get a balanced budget passed. The Dems opposed it, of course.

As you said, the Reps have controlled the AZ legislature for a long time, since 1993. They have a proven track record of incompetence (recall the alt fuels fiasco crafted by the Reps with no Dem input). Time to retire the team. The Reps can't accept that their ideology doesn't work in the real world and so they continue to bloviate instead of attempting to govern responsibly.

Well thanks for recognizing its not the 80's as you had said before.

BTW are you a great Googler or are you involved here in AZ?

 

[IronWing]

Well thanks for recognizing its not the 80's as you had said before.

The feds have had a similar program since the '80s.

Read it real slow this time, mulling over each word, maybe even the big one.

I live in AZ.

 

[nobodyknows]

So let me get this straight. You claim I am posting this in order to elicit some kind of emotional response? Really? Because that is the definition of a troll. And please explain how if I have to ask that also makes it trollish? The fact is, I posted a relevant news story, and gave commentary on it. Oh. Part of the other definition of a troll is one who posts off topic subject matter in a thread.

Fuck off troll. How about contributing? What do you think about the fact the GOP here in AZ is calling the Dems bluff, and the fact the Dems are now balking?

Make me, oh you can't can you becau7se your all blow and no go. So fuck off yourself troll breath.

If the ruling class of Arizona had been paying it's fair share in the first place you wouldn't be having these problems but in your little troll world you think it's the R's calling the D's bluff?? LMAO!! Keep drinking the kool aid butt head.

 

[yllus]

We have a "would you like to donate your tax return to help Ontario (my province of residence) pay off its debt" checkbox on our tax forms up here. It's funny.

 

[blackangst1]

Two things: First saying that the GOP balanced the federal budget in the 1990's is revisionist history. Partisan gridlock combined with a broad based economic expansion lasting a decade is what balanced the budget. If you want to say that the branches of government balanced the budget then you've got to credit the Democrats too, because there's no way the GOP could pass much without the White House's nod. (hence, the gridlock).

Whoa man. Talk about revisionist. Apparently youve forgotten Clinton submitted FIVE budget requests before he agreed on the GOP's balanced budget. Oops. And the GOP could pass whatever they wanted. They were in control. The GOP wrote and passed the balanced budget. It was the Dems who were all over the TV saying the GOP was going to cut Medicaid blah blah blah (the usual bullshit scare tactics). Perhaps you've also forgotten this was year of his famous quote " "balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities."?

Ah revisionist indeed.

Secondly, you still have not addressed the substantive criticism of the GOP's move here. They have called no-one's bluff, they are pulling a stupid political stunt. Since taxation is a collective action issue and the GOP's bill specifically ignores one of the fundamental premises upon which all taxation is based to try and score some childish points, please explain to us how you think this is 'calling someone's bluff'? This crap wouldn't fly in 6th grade, and you seem to have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

This is the political equivalent of responding to someone saying 'I love chocolate cake' with 'If you love it so much why don't you marry it!?!' and then saying "GOTCHA!" when they don't.

Maybe you didnt read the OP, in which case you are the fool here. Let me repeat a couple things for you since your memory has failed:

Im not sure what to think of this legislation

Oh shait you also didnt read this part in the OP where I stated:

"Burges (R) acknowledged that at least some of the purpose of the legislation is strictly political: She wants to address the insistence by some -- mostly Democrats -- that Arizonans are willing to pony up more money to protect vital services.

You really fail in this thread man. Maybe dont open it anymore, or perhaps start over?

 

[blackangst1]

Make me, oh you can't can you becau7se your all blow and no go. So fuck off yourself troll breath.

If the ruling class of Arizona had been paying it's fair share in the first place you wouldn't be having these problems but in your little troll world you think it's the R's calling the D's bluff?? LMAO!! Keep drinking the kool aid butt head.

So you think the reason AZ is in the mess its in is its been collecting too few taxes? Really? Then I guess the reason so many sports stars, music stars, and other misc millionaires go bankrupt is due to lack of income too? Couldnt POSSIBLY be mismanagement could it?

Wow.

 

[blackangst1]

Read it real slow this time, mulling over each word, maybe even the big one.

I live in AZ.

I misread!

Cheers :beer: The rest I stand behind

 

[nobodyknows]

So you think the reason AZ is in the mess its in is its been collecting too few taxes? Really? Then I guess the reason so many sports stars, music stars, and other misc millionaires go bankrupt is due to lack of income too? Couldnt POSSIBLY be mismanagement could it?

Wow.

Apparently McCain hasn't been bringing home enough bacon.


Are you infering that Democrats are the only ones who mismange? LMAO, after 8 years of Bush & Co. how could you even think that?

Wow.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Dude. 60k a year is not alot of money. Unless you live in a small town somewhere and even then its doesnt reach the level to be rich. Really you would pay 50%? Really? Spoken by someone who doesnt make 60k.

I didn't say it qualified as rich, just that it was twice what I've ever made. 60k is a shit ton of money where I live (mid sized town I guess, pop 35,000). Most people around here live on 20-35k (median household under 35k, per capita under 20k...and those number are going down for the past two years, not up). The rest is gravy, unless you spend irresponsibly, which I don't.

 

[manowar821]

your obama can end all that any time he wants. why doesn't he??

Because he's not a social-liberal you idiot.

 

[blackangst1]

Apparently McCain hasn't been bringing home enough bacon.


Are you infering that Democrats are the only ones who mismange? LMAO, after 8 years of Bush & Co. how could you even think that?

Wow.

Absolutely not. Ive repeatedly in dozens of related threads said its BOTH parties fault. Some things the Dems fuck up some things the GOP fucks up.

 

[blackangst1]

I didn't say it qualified as rich, just that it was twice what I've ever made. 60k is a shit ton of money where I live (mid sized town I guess, pop 35,000). Most people around here live on 20-35k (median household under 35k, per capita under 20k...and those number are going down for the past two years, not up). The rest is gravy, unless you spend irresponsibly, which I don't.

Fair enough.

 

[fskimospy]

Whoa man. Talk about revisionist. Apparently youve forgotten Clinton submitted FIVE budget requests before he agreed on the GOP's balanced budget. Oops. And the GOP could pass whatever they wanted. They were in control. The GOP wrote and passed the balanced budget. It was the Dems who were all over the TV saying the GOP was going to cut Medicaid blah blah blah (the usual bullshit scare tactics). Perhaps you've also forgotten this was year of his famous quote " "balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities."?

Ah revisionist indeed.



Maybe you didnt read the OP, in which case you are the fool here. Let me repeat a couple things for you since your memory has failed:



Oh shait you also didnt read this part in the OP where I stated:



You really fail in this thread man. Maybe dont open it anymore, or perhaps start over?

You aren't this dumb man, what's your problem? They aren't asking them to put their money where their mouth is at all. They are trying to make a point against taxation by creating something that violates the principles of taxation and then 'asking people to put their money where their mouth is'. If people should close this thread, it's because it's stupid, not because they can't understand your OP. You're better than this.

The fundamental premise of the legislation was embarrassingly stupid, and no your one sentence that says 'I'm not sure what to think of this because of charity' does not expunge the next 5 sentences where you attack the Democrats for not signing on to the Republican's 'frivolous and ineffective' political stunt. Nice try at covering your ass, but your post is out there for all to see. The legislation is dumb and you know it, it proves nothing about ideology because it betrays basic governmental principles. Be honest enough to admit it.

Also, the Republicans most certainly did NOT just 'write the bills' because 'they were in control'. Civics 101 man... the president has to sign the budget. Guess who actually proposes the budget for revision? The White House. Guess who negotiates with Congress when Congress doesn't have the 2/3rds majority to overcome a veto? The President. In fact if you look back as to why the federal government was shut down in 1995, it was because the Republicans weren't actually 'in control' and couldn't 'pass whatever they wanted'. So no, that's simply not how our government works.

 

[Chaotic42]

Where were these alleged 'small govt conservatives' 2000-2008?

Shaking their heads on the sidelines like everyone else.

 

[blackangst1]

You aren't this dumb man, what's your problem? They aren't asking them to put their money where their mouth is at all. They are trying to make a point against taxation by creating something that violates the principles of taxation and then 'asking people to put their money where their mouth is'. If people should close this thread, it's because it's stupid, not because they can't understand your OP. You're better than this.

The fundamental premise of the legislation was embarrassingly stupid, and no your one sentence that says 'I'm not sure what to think of this because of charity' does not expunge the next 5 sentences where you attack the Democrats for not signing on to the Republican's 'frivolous and ineffective' political stunt. Nice try at covering your ass, but your post is out there for all to see. The legislation is dumb and you know it, it proves nothing about ideology because it betrays basic governmental principles. Be honest enough to admit it.

Also, the Republicans most certainly did NOT just 'write the bills' because 'they were in control'. Civics 101 man... the president has to sign the budget. Guess who actually proposes the budget for revision? The White House. Guess who negotiates with Congress when Congress doesn't have the 2/3rds majority to overcome a veto? The President. In fact if you look back as to why the federal government was shut down in 1995, it was because the Republicans weren't actually 'in control' and couldn't 'pass whatever they wanted'. So no, that's simply not how our government works.

Im not sure I see where this violates anything. Do I think this is a political stunt? Sure, at some level. But I think its an interesting piece of legislation for sure. If you will allow me to stretch this a bit...since tax returns are usually made public for high ranking politicians, I think this could be a good tool to actually see if anyone backs their words with actions. I certainly dont think its problematic.

And yes, Im aware of how the budget works. Thats why I made the point Clinton submitted not one, not two, but five proposals to the GOP senate in order to achieve the balanced budget. It took that many before he finally understood they wont pass anything but a balanced budget. It wasnt the other way around. If he was such a champion of balance, it wouldve taken one.

 

[blackangst1]

Shaking their heads on the sidelines like everyone else.

Dont you mean shaking hands of those they were making deals with on the sidelines? The fiscal conservatives were virtually in exile between 2000-2008. Im just glad a few have found their way back home.

 

[fskimospy]

Im not sure I see where this violates anything. Do I think this is a political stunt? Sure, at some level. But I think its an interesting piece of legislation for sure. If you will allow me to stretch this a bit...since tax returns are usually made public for high ranking politicians, I think this could be a good tool to actually see if anyone backs their words with actions. I certainly dont think its problematic.

And yes, Im aware of how the budget works. Thats why I made the point Clinton submitted not one, not two, but five proposals to the GOP senate in order to achieve the balanced budget. It took that many before he finally understood they wont pass anything but a balanced budget. It wasnt the other way around. If he was such a champion of balance, it wouldve taken one.

Incorrect about how the shutdown happened, and Clinton won that if you remember. It's quite telling how wedded the GOP was to fiscal discipline, as pretty much the first thing they did upon losing the roadblock of Clinton was enact budget busting tax cuts. What this should tell you was that the oppositional nature of the two branches was what caused the budget to be balanced, not some sort of noble stand by Republicans. It's simply incorrect to credit them with the balanced budget without acknowledging the large role of the Democrats.

I think this legislation is absolutely ridiculous to see if people back words with actions. Not a single Democrat that I am aware of has ever advocated a policy where individual people pay greater taxes when they feel like it. That's not how taxation works and it's not how taxation has ever worked or will ever work. When I advocate tax increases, I'm not advocating higher taxes for Andy alone, I'm advocating higher taxes for everyone, Andy included. A good analogous example would be war. If someone says we should go to war with Iran, they should not go over there and start shooting regardless of whether or not the rest of the army follows them. A war, like taxation, requires collective action. If the Democrats sponsored a bill saying that all hawks should grab a rifle and invade Iran it would be a stupid stunt just like this one, not some sort of larger statement as to the Republicans' values.

 

[shadow9d9]

Dont you mean shaking hands of those they were making deals with on the sidelines? The fiscal conservatives were virtually in exile between 2000-2008. Im just glad a few have found their way back home.

Sorry, but the whole idea of "fiscal conservatives" is a myth that never has and never will exist.

 

[Chaotic42]

Dont you mean shaking hands of those they were making deals with on the sidelines? The fiscal conservatives were virtually in exile between 2000-2008. Im just glad a few have found their way back home.

No, I mean what I said. The true fiscal conservatives were and are disappointed and disaffected. All we need now is for Palin to run in 2012 and people might start throwing themselves off of cliffs.

 

[IGBT]

Maybe he will, he still has 7 years to go. :whiste:

I'm not sure how strong the Huckabee\Palin ticket is going to be now

only 7 years?? I though he was going to be president for life like Edi Amen.

 

[IronWing]

only 7 years?? I though he was going to be president for life like Edi Amen.

That's because, at some point in your life, you chose to replace your brain with a hamster wheel.

 

[blackangst1]

Incorrect about how the shutdown happened, and Clinton won that if you remember. It's quite telling how wedded the GOP was to fiscal discipline, as pretty much the first thing they did upon losing the roadblock of Clinton was enact budget busting tax cuts. What this should tell you was that the oppositional nature of the two branches was what caused the budget to be balanced, not some sort of noble stand by Republicans. It's simply incorrect to credit them with the balanced budget without acknowledging the large role of the Democrats.

I think this legislation is absolutely ridiculous to see if people back words with actions. Not a single Democrat that I am aware of has ever advocated a policy where individual people pay greater taxes when they feel like it. That's not how taxation works and it's not how taxation has ever worked or will ever work. When I advocate tax increases, I'm not advocating higher taxes for Andy alone, I'm advocating higher taxes for everyone, Andy included. A good analogous example would be war. If someone says we should go to war with Iran, they should not go over there and start shooting regardless of whether or not the rest of the army follows them. A war, like taxation, requires collective action. If the Democrats sponsored a bill saying that all hawks should grab a rifle and invade Iran it would be a stupid stunt just like this one, not some sort of larger statement as to the Republicans' values.

Fair enough we'll agree to disagree. And I agree with your war analogy BTW although I dont see it as relevant.